Why in hell should ever the Spanish give up what's theirs or accept conditions imposed on them by force? The pertinent treaty makes very clear that the town of Gibraltar is ceded as a property and without any jurisdiction whatsoever. Also the issue of the territorial waters is expressly mentioned as being just those of the port the ones ceded. Furthermore, the UK has encroached beyond the limits of the original cession. The fact the the UK hasn't honored the terms of the treaty and persists in its relentless misrepresentation is more than enough to warrant any reprisals the Spanish may want to take. It hasn't done yet because the UK and the USA flout international legality to their convenience and the UN resolutions (Gibraltar, Western Sahara, Israel, etc...). Should the issue be taken to an international court, both sides would have to agree beforehand on what constitutes a fair court and to accept their rulings as binding. Obviously the venue where they only find criminals of war among nations which lost a war is not a fair venue. The winners of WWII and justices of Nüremberg didn't think of sitting justices from non beligerant nations since they rather had a show trial than real due process.

No because they are invaders. No because the UN opposses that. No because it is against International Law. No because people's will doesn't override fairness, justice, previous commitments, etc... No because the original settlers were forcibly expelled and expropriated without compensation and cannot vote (like in Chagos or Falklands). No because there is no precedent in law that abolishes any status quo because of old age. Furthermore, the quality of those votes wouldn't pass the kind of test that should be required in order to vote. The lack of legal intelligence shown by the proponents of your simplistc pseudoideas renders those votes useless. That's how the UK has managed to carry on the farce of democracy; by leading the sheep into voting whatever and letting the oligarchy make the decisions at their backs.

Reading the first 2 lines shows that the author of this article doesn't know what he is writing about or most probably biased. The word "sit-ins" used is not the right description of the situation. They were armed (including machine guns and RPGs), violent, tortured people (some escaped and many bodies were found rotten buried underground). If you believe what the article said, then you are as biased and unfair as the writer or at the very best brainwashed by media. For all those who live in illusions : what would the authorities in your countries do against people with guns,machine guns,RPGs are walking in your streets killing and terrorising YOU?